Different how?

[ncc1701e]

With both SC WaW and Warplan Pacific this is a massive issue. They should use airfield boxes (or some other method) like Carriers at War 4 does it.

Sorry, Carriers at War 4? Do you have a link to this game? Perhaps are you talking of Carrier Battles 4 Guadalcanal?

[Elessar2]

Starting to wonder how much different will it be from this current mod.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3lP2eklBg8

[designer of the linked WitP scenario]

I am definitely following the developments with this new engine, and will likely port it over at some time after the official release. If I can do so in a reasonably timely manner I will likely expand the scale and remake the entire map-should be MUCH easier than all the work necessary to make my Europe 20km map given the high proportion of sea hexes.

[Rising-Sun]

Also, Pacific War is about task force, its composition, its screen and when I see the screenshots, I am under the impression that you can't put a BB with plenty of AAA guns to protect your CV in the same task force counter. Am I wrong?

Thats' always been a glaring issue with Strategic Command games...the one unit per hex rule. You can't stack units or ships, so no task forces per se. As a result, by 1945 in some games of SC World @ War I had Japan literally surrounded by a triple wall of Allied ships when in reality all of them could fit in one hex with room for hundreds more.

Well this is not my taste at all. Thanks, I will certainly not invest here.

Same here too, just like how they redid the War in the East, buying the second part is insane for that price and not even a discount. Just dont like how counters are setup in each hex, doesnt feel realistic.

I still love that War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition though, one of the best there is!

[george420]

Problem solved if the new game has task force counters, and a separate window of some sort for placing ships in a task force.

Yes, that's the answer.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Great thoughts in this thread.

Will there be any new game functionality, guess we'll see.
I remember there was SC-2 and SC-Pacific, on Tiles, but that's ancient history.

Maps & Scenarios I have high confidence will be done well.
Play Balance, can be calibrated by players. Reminds me, haven't played SC-ACW since release, is it better?
The same game engine is fine, I'm used to it.
Just curious if there's many real new features.
Is Hubert really doing the word, or just being jobbed out?

TBD,
-Elvis Jon Jones Rambo

[Torplexed]

Reminds me, haven't played SC-ACW since release, is it better?

The game now puts more pressure on the Union to keep to the offensive, but with one unit per hex the crowded strategic situation is the same. It still plays like WW I mass-scale attritional war with very little maneuver, flanking, and distinct ACW-type battles. Especially in Virginia.

[Zuxius]

Not sure this is even a possibility but perhaps blow up boxes is the way to do all the conflicts justice and allow stacking on the big map. With large expanded island maps, you really can keep to a level of realism which can be universal for all the battles. As long as the land space you're fighting in is uniform, the game will have a stronger feel. Ships approaching from the west would enter the blow up map from the west. Hovering over an island could show it more in detail on the big map.
I think I'd also prefer veteran units having more stay power in morale and readiness. These brutal conditions without supply should be looked at more closely for this theatre. Scarecrows in caves were still quite devastating and the current supply rules just lend to massacres. Not the case in the Pacific.
I doubt they can jump their own engine but these would be improvements to make the best Pacific War game and not another engine limitation game.

As a side note, I believe every game should somehow raise the bar of an engine. Go beyond what was intended in the hard code until its time for a new engine. Sticking within the parameters of a limiting code isn't something to accept, but rather a springboard to improve from. If you add something new to the hard code with each iteration of the game, you get a series of improvements that basically can be used for a new engine design. Much more gradual to try something new with each addition to the series until you're ready for the next number bump.

[Numdydar]

With both SC WaW and Warplan Pacific this is a massive issue. They should use airfield boxes (or some other method) like Carriers at War 4 does it.

Sorry, Carriers at War 4? Do you have a link to this game? Perhaps are you talking of Carrier Battles 4 Guadalcanal?

Yes I meant Carriers Battles 4 Thanks for the correction.

[Tigertony]

I would agree that StratCom doesn't really do naval warfare that well, so I would hope that a game with the title "War in the Pacific" really tackles those issues such that the fighting of naval campaigns over great distances and long time-frames forces me to consider factors that the real admirals and strategists had to deal with. Some have already been discussed in this thread, so here are some ideas for the developers and other players to consider.

1. Attach/Detach Destroyer. Works similar to the way command units attach/detach land units. A capital ship can attach one destroyer in an adjacent hex provided the destroyer has not yet moved or been upgraded. However, the destroyer, as a unit, then disappears from the screen and the capital ship's defence values all jump up (unit strength, AA and anti-sub) - how much depends on the strengths of the destroyer when it is attached. The destroyer unit (and remember a naval unit in the game actually represents several ships) is now escorting the capital ship/unit until it is detached. If the capital ship sinks, the destroyer is also lost. No capital ship can have more than one attached destroyer.

2. Landing Task Forces. These are already in the game, and if one wants to soften up the landing zone first, one bombs it from carriers and shells it from battleships, just as one can do in WaW. However, if there were to be an upgrade on current landing forces, I would consider a shock landing force as a new unit that might become available later in the game - something that works in a similar way to Russian shock armies.

3. Atoll Defence. At present, atolls have to be two hexes to accommodate an airfield (and air unit) and a space for a defending infantry unit. If I am going to attack, I will assault the airfield as it's easier to destroy the air unit. Thus, I get to land and the infantry have no real effect. Ideally, one wants atolls to be only one hex with the infantry defending the airfield and the air unit, which leads to stacked units. StratCom does not do stacked units, so has to employ a different technique. One is already in the game with static AA that can be built on certain hexes even if already occupied by another unit. Thus, there is the possibility of building static sea defences on hexes next to seas and oceans. I would envisage 30 MPP, say, giving you the equivalent of a garrison with infantry weapons 0, 30/60 more would upgrade to infantry weapons 1/2 respectively. This would add to the defence strength of the airfield or air unit (but not another land unit) on the atoll. (Alternatively, there could be a separate 'Sea Defence' research option, but that might be going too far.)

A second method for Atoll Defence would be Attach/Detach defenders as in (1) above. When a unit is on an airfield or in an adjacent port (again before movement as it takes a whole move to dig in), it can be attached to that airfield. It would have to be on the unit's menu in the same way that preparing for a drop is on a parachute unit's menu. As in (1) the digging in unit disappears from the screen until it is detached, but while it is attached, any attacking force has to destroy it first before it can destroy any air unit and land. (How to 'find' the attached unit to detach it might be an issue.)

[ncc1701e]

With both SC WaW and Warplan Pacific this is a massive issue. They should use airfield boxes (or some other method) like Carriers at War 4 does it.

Sorry, Carriers at War 4? Do you have a link to this game? Perhaps are you talking of Carrier Battles 4 Guadalcanal?

Yes I meant Carriers Battles 4 Thanks for the correction.

Thank you, I just grab it at 50% on Steam by the way. I start playing with the Raid on the Indian Ocean scenario as Allies. The Japanese AI beat me without any problem.

I like the fact that you can hide your carrier task force under a storm.

[Platoonist]

I'm also hoping there is some attempt to differentiate between very minor and major ports. Some South Pacific "ports" like Buin, Finschhafen and Luganville were little more than tropical anchorages with no jetties, facilities or drydocks. Utterly incapable of repairing anything larger than a native skiff. No fueling facilities either. Japan and the US usually had to send their more heavily damaged naval assets all the way home from the South Pacific for full repairs. Some of these primitive ports were eventually improved somewhat with engineering and construction labor but it should cost in time and MPP.

[Elessar2]

That last one about the minor ports is spot-on, and already discussed earlier in the year. Ships now can cycle through a port and instantly get back to 10 supply; a Minor Port should only allow 5 supply, and a max repair level of 5 as well.

[Happycat]

I'd be curious to know if the game will simulate one of Japan's major weak points, lack of oil and tanker losses which limited everything from pilot training to warship movement. Traditionally, the SC series has never tracked oil as a limiting resource.

True enough, in a specific way the oil is not tracked. Convoy losses certainly inhibits the ability to produce many new units, but the movement factors are unaffected. National morale drop will affect fighting ability of units, but again, movement remains at full factor. Not being a programmer, I have no idea how hard it would be to factor in oil losses specifically as an influence on movement range. But it would be nice

[Happycat]

I'm also hoping there is some attempt to differentiate between very minor and major ports. Some South Pacific "ports" like Buin, Finschhafen and Luganville were little more than tropical anchorages with no jetties, facilities or drydocks. Utterly incapable of repairing anything larger than a native skiff. No fueling facilities either. Japan and the US usually had to send their more heavily damaged naval assets all the way home from the South Pacific for full repairs. Some of these primitive ports were eventually improved somewhat with engineering and construction labor but it should cost in time and MPP.

I find that in SC original, 2 and 3 that ports worked reasonably close to as in RL. Especially in the Pacific Theatre, neither side can repair much at historical minor ports because below level 8, as memory serves, you couldn't repair squat. But I agree, they should also not help with fuel either. Haven't played SC for a few months, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Platoonist]

That last one about the minor ports is spot-on, and already discussed earlier in the year. Ships now can cycle through a port and instantly get back to 10 supply; a Minor Port should only allow 5 supply, and a max repair level of 5 as well.

Yeah, I remember it was on wish list for your Pacific mod.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5116814

[Platoonist]

I find that in SC original, 2 and 3 that ports worked reasonably close to as in RL. Especially in the Pacific Theatre, neither side can repair much at historical minor ports because below level 8, as memory serves, you couldn't repair squat. But I agree, they should also not help with fuel either. Haven't played SC for a few months, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I never played the original Strategic Command games. The isometric projection map was pretty cool-looking though. Wish it could still do that.

[generalfdog]

Problem solved if the new game has task force counters, and a separate window of some sort for placing ships in a task force.

Good idea.

Sc games have great graphics, I like their videos and events, I have bought a few of their games but they really aren't my taste, I was excited about the waw title and civil war version, but one thing they will never do is change the formula it will always be 1 unit per hex and one unit per attack no matter how little sense it makes the civil war game is like ww1 trench warfare and the pacific will be a maze of ships fighting one on one. their ww1 game is good because it makes sense the rest not so much in my opinion.

[James Taylor]

The original SC was published by Battlefront and had hexes. It was more of a Clash of Steel upgrade and sadly it has not changed as far as the combat mechanics of one attack, one unit per hex format from the beginning, like 24 years ago.

Still it is a great game but eventually we would all like to see that next evolutionary step; but by now I'm thinking its not going to happen. Luckily we have Al working on War Plan 2, which could bridge that gap we are all looking for.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

The Civil War game needs an "Army Counter", named the Army of Virginia.
General Lee is The Man in Charge.
Underneath Lee is bunch of Rebel Leaders: Longstreet, A.P. Hill, etc
Then some Cannons
Then some Cavalry with Jeb Stuart.

Rinse & Repeat, Army of Cumberland, with J. Johnson + Nat Forrest.

Army counters move around "some" and kick ass.
Army meets other Army, they fight.

The current SC-US Civil war game is an endless mob of units.
The map size could use some changes.
The action New Mexico / Mizzo is more intersting than Virginia.

The victory conditions need changed.

Needs alot of changes, check out the Forum after release for opinions.

[James Taylor]

Hate to rain on this parade but Elessar has already done this scenario, War in the Pacific.